Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
Has a single airline called for expansion at Gatwick rather than Heathrow?
This is not a decision that should be dictated by airlines. However, I'd guess far more airlines, or airline groups, have called for LHR to control its costs than anything else in this debate. Obviously that comes as no surprise.
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
It's funny watching so many selective stats being thrown around, it's just like my day job... Stats will advise and model possible outcomes, the forecasts will most likely be wildly out, mystic meg types of what something will like like in 5 years often are. It's a government's job to decide and lead, and fight the battle in the courts as required, some hope with May alas. The stats purporting to show LGW having a better ROI than LHR work if you don't want to expand LHR and inflate every cost you can while minimising the risks at LGW.
The problem LHR have is that, when the same model supported their position (i.e. LHR offers the strongest economic case) they trumpeted the finding. As they have now been found (using the same economic model) to offer a less advantageous outcome than LGW, they cannot criticise the model without looking opportunistic.
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
So yes, what airline wants LGW over LHR? Any?
This is not a decision taken by airlines.
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
If we had a 50% larger LGW tomorrow with a whole new runway, exactly who would be queuing to use it that wasn't already there today?
If we had a larger LHR who exactly would be there who aren't using it today?
Easyjet? Jet2? Ryanair? Flybe? You might get the odd full service carrier thrown in there as a new carrier (China Airlines springs to mind). If that's the case why spend the extra money on LHR when you can spend far less at LGW or STN and achieve pretty much the same outcome?
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
For the record I would have no issue with a new runway at both, so not anti LGW per se.
I think the problem is that,in the short term the market cannot support a new runway at both.
I agree that both should be allowed to get on with it and we'll see which scheme gets investors backing. I suspect LHR but they'd have to come up with a realistic scheme that doesn't rip off consumers by taking advantage of a monopolistic charging structure.
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
Is the concept of the taxpayer paying for new road and rail infrastructure so the taxpayer can get a flight on time so alien?
It is when it supports the investments made by sovereign wealth funds! I don't expect LHR or the government to fund 100% of this, but I'd expect LHR to contribute the vast majority of this (and not pass the cost on to the consumer).